Oracle International Corporation v 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang)
WIPO Case No. D2022-4284
•06-01-2023
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Oracle International Corporation v. 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang)
Case No. D2022-4284
1. The Parties
Complainant is Oracle International Corporation, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”),
represented by Accent Law Group, Inc., United States.
Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <oracecorp.com> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital
Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on
November 10, 2022. On November 11, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 14, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 14, 2022, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on November 21, 2022.
On November 14, 2022, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On November 21, 2022, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent in English and
Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 23, 2022. In accordance with the
page 2
Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 13, 2022. Respondent did not submit any
response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 14, 2022.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 2022. The Panel finds
that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of
Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
A. Complainant
Complainant, Oracle International Corporation, is a company incorporated in the United States. Founded in
1977, Complainant is one of the world’s largest developers and marketers of enterprise software products
and services, cloud data storage, and computer hardware systems - particularly its own brands of database
management systems and applications. Beginning in 2011, Complainant became the second-largest
software maker by revenue, after Microsoft and it currently has more than 430,000 customers.
Complainant has exclusive rights in the ORACLE marks. Complainant is the exclusive owner of numerous ORACLE marks, including U.S. trademark registration for ORACLE, registered on July 6, 1982 (registration number 1200239); U.S. trademark registration for ORACLE, registered on September 5, 1989 (registration number 1555182); Chinese trademark registration for ORACLE, registered on December 7, 1995
(registration number 797963); and Chinese trademark registration for ORACLE, registered on December 21,
1995 (registration number 801813) (Exhibit E to the Complaint). Based on the information provided by
Complainant, Complainant’s computing and database related products and services are sold throughout the
world under the ORACLE trademark. The ORACLE products and services have been the subject of
extensive unsolicited news coverage in high-profile outlets such as CNN, the New York Times, and others,
and have also garnered marketing and industry awards including being ranked No. 17, by Interbrand,
amongst “Best Global Brands” of 2017 (Exhibit D to the Complaint).
B. Respondent
Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang), China. The disputed domain name was registered on August 5,
2022, long after the ORACLE marks were registered. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name
resolves to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website in English (Exhibit F to the Complaint).[1]
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ORACLE trademark as
well as to Complainant’s “ website address. It omits only the lower-case letter “l” to form
the operative portion of the disputed domain name “orace corp”, rather than “oracle corp”. Respondent’s
addition of the term “corp” does nothing to reduce confusion with Complainant’s mark as this merely
describes the nature of a business entity.
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a long-standing pattern of conduct in registering multiple domain names that infringe on the trademarks of other brand owners.
page 3
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. From the evidence presented on the record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between Complainant and Respondent to the effect that the language of the proceeding should be English. Complainant filed initially its Complaint in English, and has requested that English be the language of the proceeding for the following main reasons:
| (a) | The PPC website that resolves from the disputed domain name appears in the English language (Exhibit F to the Complaint); |
| (b) | The words “oracle” and “corp” are English language words presented in the Roman alphabet and |
Respondent’s ability to create a typographical variation of the word “oracle” indicates his facility with the
English language; and
| (c) | Complainant operates its global business in English and should not be put to the added expense of translating the Complaint where Respondent has failed to respond to its demand letters or otherwise to participate in the dispute process. |
Complainant requests that the proceeding be held in English, and in the alternative, if the Panel does not
agree to hold the entire proceeding in English, that Complainant be allowed to submit its documentation in
English.
Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding and did not object to the use of English as the language of the proceeding.
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules allows the panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding. In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue
for resolving domain name disputes (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK)
electrical appliance co. ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0293; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin, WIPO Case No.
D2006-0593). The language finally decided by the panel for the proceeding should not be prejudicial to
either one of the parties in its abilities to articulate the arguments for the case (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,
WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004). Section 4.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected
UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) further states:
“Noting the aim of conducting the proceedings with due expedition, paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a
panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both
that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.
Against this background, panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios include (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language/script of the domain name
page 4
particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark, (iii) any content on the webpage under the
disputed domain name, (iv) prior cases involving the respondent in a particular language, (v) prior correspondence between the parties, (vi) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint, (vii) evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language, (viii) in cases involving multiple domain names,
the use of a particular language agreement for some (but not all) of the disputed domain names, (ix)
currencies accepted on the webpage under the disputed domain name, or (x) other indicia tending to show
that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement.” (See also
L’Oreal S.A. v. MUNHYUNJA, WIPO Case No. D2003-0585).
On the record, Respondent appears to be a Chinese resident and is thus presumably not a native English speaker. However, considering the following, the Panel has decided that English should be the language of the proceeding: (a) the disputed domain name consists of all Latin characters, and particularly an English
word “corp” (an abbreviation of “corporation”) and a misspelled English word “orace” (whereby the letter “l” is
omitted from the term “oracle”), rather than Chinese script; (b) the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) of the
disputed domain name is “.com”, so the disputed domain name seems to be prepared for users worldwide,
particularly English speaking countries; (c) the disputed domain name resolves to an English website, which
contains links labeled in English, such as “Customer Database Management”, “Data Reporting Platform”, and “Database for Business” (Exhibit F to the Complaint); (d) the Center has notified Respondent of the
proceeding in both Chinese and English, and Respondent has indicated no objection to Complainant’s
request that English be the language of the proceeding; and (e) the Center informed the Parties, in English
and Chinese, that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese. The Panel would have accepted
a response in Chinese, but none was filed.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both
Parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the Parties in its ability to articulate the arguments for this case.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that
English shall be the language of the proceeding, and the decision will be rendered in English.
6.2. Substantial Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraphs 4(a)-(c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ORACLE marks. The ORACLE marks have been registered, see section 4.A above.
The Panel finds that the essential part of disputed domain name “oracecorp” differs from Complainant’s
trademark ORACLE by only one letter – the letter “l” is omitted from the term “oracle” and the suffix “corp”
(which is the abbreviation of “corporation”). This does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between
Complainant’s registered trademarks and the disputed domain name (Walgreen Co. v. Lin yanxiao /
Linyanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-1605).
page 5
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard
MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).
Moreover, as to “typosquatting”, section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states: “A domain name which
consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be
confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”.
As the essential part of the disputed domain name “oracecorp” is a combination of a one-letter typographical
error of Complainant’s ORACLE marks and the suffix “corp” (an abbreviation of “corporation”), the Panel
finds the disputed domain name must be considered a prototypical example of typosquatting (Accenture
Global Services Limited v. 石磊 (Lei Shi), WIPO Case No. D2020-1568).
Thus, the Panel finds that the one letter typographical error of Complainant’s ORACLE marks does not
prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s ORACLE
marks.
Further, in relation to the gTLD suffix, section 1.11.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 further states: “The applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test”.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that
Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s trademarks or
service marks at issue.
The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to respondent to rebut
complainant’s contentions. If respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph
4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai, WIPO Case No. D2008-0441;
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1 and cases cited therein).
The ORACLE marks have been registered in the U.S. since at least 1982, which long precedes
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name (in 2022). According to the Complaint, Complainant
is one of the world’s largest developers and marketers of enterprise software products and services, cloud
data storage, and computer hardware systems. Beginning in 2011, Oracle became the second-largest
software maker by revenue, after Microsoft and it currently has more than 430,000 customers. The ORACLE
products and services have been the subject of extensive unsolicited news coverage in high-profile outlets
such as CNN, the New York Times, and others, and have also garnered marketing and industry awards
including being ranked No. 17, by Interbrand, amongst “Best Global Brands” of 2017 (Exhibit D to the
Complaint).
page 6
Moreover, Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use its ORACLE marks in any manner. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifted the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
| (a) | There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, or reasons to justify the choice of |
the terms “orace corp” (misspelled “oracle corp”) in the disputed domain name and in his business
| operation. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ORACLE marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the ORACLE marks. | |
| (b) | There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2022, long after the ORACLE marks became widely known. The disputed |
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORACLE marks.
| (c) | There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, the disputed domain name resolves to a PPC website, it seems that Respondent is making profits through the Internet traffic misled as to the nature |
of the website hosted under the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks. (See BKS Bank AG v. Jianwei Guo, WIPO Case No. D2017-1041; BASF SE v. Hong Fu
Chen, Chen Hong Fu, WIPO Case No. D2017-2203.)
The Panel notes that Respondent has not produced any evidence to establish his rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, Complainant has established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of
Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs
directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
page 7
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of
Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
The Panel concludes that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case and upon the evidence of these circumstances and other relevant circumstances, it is adequate to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
| (a) | Registration in Bad Faith |
The Panel finds that Complainant has widespread reputation as one of the world’s largest developers and
marketers of enterprise software products and services, cloud data storage, and computer hardware disputed domain name (in 2022). The Panel therefore finds that the ORACLE mark is not one that a trader could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
systems. As mentioned above, beginning in 2011, Complainant became the second-largest software maker
by revenue, after Microsoft and it currently has more than 430,000 customers. It is not conceivable that
Further, Respondent has chosen not to respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the UDRP decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. See also
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2002-0787.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
| (b) | Use in Bad Faith |
Respondent is using the website resolved by the disputed domain name to provide PPC links to third-party commercial websites. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is currently using the confusingly similar
disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s
website.
Given the reputation of the ORACLE marks, the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has connection with Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name created a likelihood of confusion with the ORACLE marks. Moreover, as mentioned above, the disputed domain name resolves to a PPC website, which contains links for services
that compete with Complainant, including links labeled “Customer Database Management”, “Data Reporting Platform”, and “Database for Business”. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was
registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. Such use of the disputed domain name is also
disruptive in relation to the interests of Complainant.
In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the ORACLE mark, intended to ride on the goodwill of this trademark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users looking for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and
rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
page 8
In addition, Complainant has provided evidence showing that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad
faith conduct pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. See Sonatype, Inc. v. 杨智超（Zhi Chao Yang),
WIPO Case No. D2022-3011, and Jelmar, LLC v. 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang aka Yang Zhi Chao), WIPO Case
No. D2022-3457.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <oracecorp.com> be transferred to Complainant.
/Yijun Tian/
Yijun Tian
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 6, 2023
0
0
0